Vatel (2000)

8/10

=G=31 August 2001

"Vatel" is a French period film with Depardieu as the title character, a master steward under the crown of King Louis XIV whose job it is to put on feasts and spectacles for the pleasures of royalty. Typical of director Joffe, the film peers deep into the character of Vatel, around whom swirl politicking and wickedness, with such depth and dimension as to make the plot of secondary importance. Replete with sumptuous sets, elegant costuming, and epicurean delights, the film fills the eye and whets the palate as few films can while it paints a portrait of a sensitive and honorable man who makes the supreme sacrifice for dignity.

A superb watch for those into period films painted with delicate brush strokes and subtle nuances.

56 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Nice historical drama

tfc16 March 2002

Vatel was not a bad movie, in fact it was worth viewing. If it were not a true story you could argue it was too calm and had too little excitement for the people who seek diversion entertainment. However, since it is a true story, about a royal cook and what he had to go through just to do his art it becomes very interesting. Another good theme was the disfunctionality of the royals and how the servants interacted with these powerful people (Vatel tried not to as much as possible). I particularly liked the part where Vatel said "no thank you" so philosophically to a nobleman's perverted request that Vatel won him over as a friend through respect. If you like brinkmanship and maneuvering, this movie has it, be it subtle.

9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Sweet and sad

HotToastyRag7 August 2019

Aren't movies in the 1600s fun to watch? There are always beautiful costumes and hairstyles to look at, gorgeous architecture and interior design, and peaceful royal gardens. In Vatel, King Louis XIV, Julian Sands, attends a three-day festival hosted by a prince, Julian Glover. Even though that's story enough to keep the movie going, that's not even the main plot. The prince's steward is the lead, and he's tasked with any number of errands and quests to please his boss. Sometimes he's put in charge of really important events, and sometimes his chores are small and demeaning.

Gérard Depardieu plays the humble royal chef, hopelessly in love with Uma Thurman, the king's mistress. She's far friendlier to him than any woman of her station would be, and he eats up the crumbs of affection knowing they're all he'll ever get. It's very sweet, and also rather sad. It's made very clear to the audience that it's an impossible romance, so even though you're watching it and hoping that somehow the class boundaries can be broken down, the movie doesn't make promises it can't keep. For example, the prince wants a particular fowl dish and refuses to compromise, and rather than sacrifice Uma's birds, Gérard has his own sent to the kitchen instead. See what I mean? It's a sweet gesture and very generous, but it inspires more tears than smiles.

This is a movie you probably should check out at least once. I've seen it twice, and it was entertaining both times. It's very aesthetically pleasing, and Gérard gives a wonderful performance, as usual.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

One of the year's best films

tprofumo17 January 2001

Roland Joffe's "Vatel" does something few movies can do these days: it takes you to a place you've never been before.

The French made film has Louie XIV visiting a poor province ruled by an improverished prince, who must put on spectacular entertainment fit for the Sun King. There's more than the King's time at stake here, though, for Louie wants the prince to lead his army, should France go to war with Holland, and the Prince desperately needs Louie's financial help, to save his nearly brankrupt province.

Enter the prince's chief steward, Vatel, played by Gerard Depardiue. A combination French chief extraordinaire and showman supreme, he not only serves up unbelieveable meals, but also puts on shows that would out do James Cameron, and does it on a much smaller budget. From pop up lawn decorations to fire works extravaganzas that would shame the Chinese, Vatel displays a genius for spectacle that will literally leave you breathless.

"Vatel" the movie includes lots of court intrigue and some fine acting from those carrying it out. Deparidieu delivers an unexpected performance as Vatel. Rather than the explosive, temperamental French chief, he plays this 17th century showman as a harried administrator who is trying keep a lot of balls in the air at the same time he must navigate the tricky waters of French politics. It's an understated performance in which much of what is going on is behind his eyes (and probably in his stomach ulcers) rather than on the surface.

His protagonists are Julian Sands as the petulant,devious King and Tim Roth as the chief court intriguer, kind of an early version of a political advance man. Uma Thurman is a lady in waiting who has caught all three men's eyes.

All are good, but what sets "Vatel" off is the visuals which give you a look at spectacle the likes of which this writer had never before seen. This film should walk away with all the set design, costume design and effects Oscars hands down. It is one of the most incredible visual experiences in film history. See it in the theaters, though, and not squashed into a TV screen.

43 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

A glimpse of the luxurious life of the Sun King

filipemanuelneto8 September 2015

This film tells the story of François Vatel, a master of ceremonies at the service of Prince Louis II of Condé, one of the most important aristocrats of the French court but that was bankrupt and away of the good graces of King Louis XIV. The approaching of a war with the Netherlands makes Condé, anxious to led the king's armies, decides to invite the king for a weekend at his Castle of Chantilly, hoping to be able to recover the royal sympathy. Then Vatel is in charge of organizing a three-day party like never seen before for king's amusement. Based on historical events, the film is directed by Roland Joffé, has argument by Jeanne Labrune (in original French version) and features Gérard Depardieu (Vatel), Uma Thurman (in the role of Anne of Montausier, one of the king's lovers) and Tim Roth (as the Marquis de Lauzun, the king's confidant).

Joffé managed to make the audience relive the events. The environments, the locations for filming, the costumes, the music, everything was thought out and analyzed carefully to reproduce the atmosphere of the time, so we must congratulate this effort for historical accuracy, which even received a nomination for the Oscar for Best Art Direction. The actors met well with their roles. The script also works in interesting ways, including some situations where we glimpse the contrast (and even shock) of the two worlds of seventeenth-century France: the richness and unparalleled luxury of the court and the absolute misery of the common people. Also positive note for the soundtrack of Enio Morricone, although not one of his best-known or most interesting compositions.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Good looking film needs more passion

rosscinema2 October 2003

Warning: Spoilers

This film is considered a major flop and the French absolutely abhor it in every sense. I decided to view it and remain neutral and just let the film play out without having read the bad reviews beforehand. Story is set in Chantilly, France in 1671 and a broke nobleman named Prince de Conde (Julian Glover) has decided to throw a 3 day feast for Louis XIV (Julian Sands) and all of his royal friends with the hope that if he is impressed enough he will commission the Prince to General as war looms with Holland. Conde has put the 3 day feast and all of the entertainment in the hands of Francois Vatel (Gerard Depardieu) who can work magic when it comes to preparing feasts even though he may not have enough food. Vatel is a patient man full of loyalty and honor and ethics. At times he is forced to tell some of the royal guests "No" to certain extravagances and this has caught the eye of Anne de Montausier (Uma Thurman) who has become the Kings new mistress and also has to repel the advances of the Marquis de Lauzun (Tim Roth).

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

While the King is playing cards he asks Conde to put up Vatel as part of a bet and Conde reluctantly agree's. Conde loses and Vatel is given the news that he must pack his bags and get ready to head to Versailles. Vatel is so crushed by his loyalty being ignored that he kills himself. This film was directed by Roland Joffe who had given everyone a truly horrible adaptation of "The Scarlett Letter" and I don't think this film is anywhere near as bad as that although several critics will say otherwise. The look of the film is very impressive and the Art Design was nominated for an Oscar. Good cinematography make this a visual delight but the story seems to be another story. I do recommend this film and I'll first tell what I liked about it. First, I though Depardieu gave a convincing performance and his loyalty was very evident in his characterization. He convincingly played a man sworn to do the best he can and asks of nothing in return. Secondly, even though a romance between Thurman and Depardieu seems very unlikely I did understand why she would admire him. How can anyone not be touched by his tenderness and morals. But I have to admit that the story could have been a lot better if more had been explained about Vatel. We watch Vatel in this film spend too much time poking his fingers in pots and tasting the food. Of course all of royalty is portrayed as spoiled snobs and it's now become cliche to show them in this light. This film caused a ruckus when it opened at Cannes because the script was rewritten by an Englishman from a French story and it was filmed in English. The bad reviews were all aimed at Joffe and I'm not sure if his career will ever be the same. This film does have some glaring flaws but I suggest to people that if they view it to do so with a fair and open mind. I do think Depardieu is good in this film and Thurman isn't bad either. I think it's worth a look.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Pleasing but unsubstantial

Asterix-311 May 2000

Duc de Condé's employee, François Vatel (1631-1678) was in charge of cooking, and preparing shows for the French King Louis XIVth when he once come in the castle of Chantilly, owned by de Condé. If Vatel can impress the King, de Condé will gain his favors, and the destiny of France will change. Read (again) Sévigné to know more about Vatel.

In the movie, he falls in love with a King's mistress (Uma), he is refined, very competent (he even invents the whipped cream "crème Chantilly"). The movie shows three days of banquets.

The brilliant Gérard Depardieu is Vatel. But this time, this wonderful actor seems to be absent. He seems to wander about the tables, gives orders, and laboriously hurries. The screenplay vanishes (still Jeanne Labrune and Tom Stoppard wrote it !), the actors vanish, and finally, there is only a beautiful scenery left, due to Jean Rabasse. It is pleasing, but quite unsubstantial. Morricone's music, takes part in the quiet but shallow mood.

This movie opened the 53th festival of Cannes.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

A movie with much visuals but lacking in drama

lingmeister6 June 2002

The movie seemed to have spend too much time in the non-essentials. That includes the festivities for the King, which were visually very appealing, but doesn't add too much to the film. Also, Vatel was seen most of the time running around in preparing for the parties, but not actually doing much. After all those scenes there is not much room left for the story to develop and unfold.

Much of what's going on occurs during all those festivities, but they were mostly slight gestures. Maybe it is because that is what those aristocrats do all day, but they don't have to let it actually occupy most of the movie.

The film did convey the contrast the lives of aristocrats and the merely normal people. But the differences were never delved on, instead, they would go back to the fun, games and laughter of the noblemen.

Only toward the end, was there scenes where there was scenes with any drama, but it comes a little too late. It was 7 meals and 5 festivities into the film by then.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

We should not judge this movie by its cover

tantris041916 August 2002

Letting yourself be submerged by the visual aspects of this subtle but not so fast movie is the key to its understanding. The images are rich and varied; the atmosphere is deep in history if not somewhat accurate at least attempts to recreate wonderfully the ambiance, decadence and glory that was France during the Reign of Louis XIV. Those who love history will love this movie, not for its content, but for its exuberance and unashamed panache.

I will not attempt to decipher the story line, the words in itself are what is important here. Whether the story is accurate or not or whether is fact or fiction or whose point of view is it, is irrelevant, you should make your own conclusion. The most important aspect for me is its own subtlety, seeing its hidden little treasures in its rich tapestry of images and symbolism was the most fun, also its unassuming little gems of wisdom about human nature here and there, gave enough impulse to the story to keep it interesting, Yes! This is not `The Three Musketeers' for those looking for action and Yes! This is not `Cyrano' either for those looking for the power and poetry of the prose.

What these characters do is not as important as how they do it, specially during those days of very conventional and strict etiquette, their seemingly detached attitude is only a reflection of their hidden emotions as much as their blind following of the rules imposed by a necessary tyrant. Only then we come to understand that this was only a clever device that Louis XIV created to maintain all of these rich dilettante aristocrats busy with life at court to keep them away from the real world and the real politics thus providing him with absolute power (This was his glory not Versailles).

I find that if we look carefully under the varnish and the gold, they were not too far from the farce and ridicule that we see on today's society. When we look around, the music, the clothes and the places might be different, but the treachery, pettiness, envy, jealousy, hunger for power and those who utilize it for their own purposes are still the same. If anything, this movie is a mirror of society at is very worst and best, and a great point of reference to look at ourselves as we were and as we presently are. Those who pretend that this story is just a boring fantasy of the past of some fertile imagination dressed up in pretty costumes with some period music; they need a better set of glasses than an eye doctor can normally prescribe. Those with the sensitivity to appreciate what is not obvious and can read between the lines will be ready for a treat.

25 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

All Dressed Up with Nothing To Do

marktucker77771 February 2001

Despite the best efforts of talented actors like Uma Thurman and Tim Roth, director Roland Joffe's film lacks any sign of character depth. In fact, they don't have much to do, other than enjoying the amazing masterpieces of entertainment that Vatel (a horrid Depardieu) puts together. The spectacle is brilliantly staged and photographed and is very pleasing to the senses. I do recommend the film because it's faults never offend me. I was never bored and it did not have a period piece feel to it. The art direction is Oscar-worthy and the costumes and cinematography were quite good as well. I just wish we cared about the characters.

1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

flashy,showy,no substance.

dbdumonteil31 December 2002

This is a movie made for His Majesty Gérard Depardieu,with an absurd supporting cast and lots and lots of wasted money. Depardieu is everywhere in the movie and reduces the others characters to walk-ons.Roland Joffé films everything he can,and tries to impress the audience with fireworks,audacious camera tricks,Fellini-inspired settings but he does not create anything.

The Sun King is featured but he pales into insignificance ,which is a shame all the same!His brother is first shown as a wicked perverse man (in the French tradition:for that matter,take a look at the "Angélique "series)when the historians describe him as an admittedly gay man but a human being who was courageous,generous with the vanquished at war,and finally gentle(see "Monsieur,frère du roi" by Philippe Erlanger).At least his last line shows his real nature but it's too little too late.

But the biggest bomb is Tim Roth's Lauzun!The duc de Lauzun was a Gascon ,who was always cracking jokes ,a bon vivant,fond of women ,so insolent that he was finally sent to the Pignerol jail where he met again Vatel's former master,Nicolas Fouquet -the movie briefly hints at him-.Tim Roth's sullen face is by no means duc de Lauzun,this joker who would marry the king 's cousin ,la grande Mademoiselle,a spinster,for her dough:oddly this colorful dowager does not appear at all.Montespan,La Vallière do,but they do walk-on parts.(Only one line each:Montespan:"I'm coming up" Vallière:'I'm coming down",the only touch of humor in the whole movie) Queen Marie-Therèse is not well portrayed either:she was rather ugly,gauche and self-effacing.Here she seems to outshine Montespan,which is rather odd!

9 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Visually stunning look at the technology and society of "Court"

jglass120 January 2006

The film's production value is in league with the best sci-fi films; yet it was a legit piece about European Court in the 17th Century and the impact of the monarchical system of government on love, money, culture and politics. If you've ever experienced an unrequited or forbidden (not illicit) love, you'll empathize with the plight of François Vatel, played by Gérard Depardieu, whose performance is characteristically excellent. The movie's historical elements offer a surprising look at the available technology, even if the applications were anticipated. The love story is not original (stations interfere with true, but conflicted, love), but the context and visual surroundings -- and the fact that it is historically based -- add an unexpected dimension to the viewing, which is best appreciated on a large screen.

11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Historically interesting,,,but apparently not everyone's cup of tea.

planktonrules14 July 2009

Warning: Spoilers

I watched this film with my sister-in-law, so this time you will be learning what I thought and what she thought about the film. We both agreed that the costumes and sets were amazing. It's obvious that the film makers had a lot of money and they did spend it. However, we were both wondering (and I hope someone out there can tell me more)--are the special effects, such as the incredible set that appears around King Louis XIV, anachronisms? In other words, while this really looked neat, was this even possible in the 17th century? We didn't know, but even today I doubt that such a spectacle would be that easy to create. However, we both felt that while the sets were nice and all, the characters themselves really didn't seem that deep or compelling (except for Vatel) and the relationship he forged with Anne. Nice to look at, of course, but not all that compelling much of the time.

Here is where we both disagreed (I could tell, because she hit me over the head with a lamp when I told her I liked this): the ending. I loved the end, as it was a wonderful way for Gerard Depardieu's character to stand up to the King and make a statement about freedom. However, Linda (who's totally wrong) said it was just too depressing and hurt the film. And, now that I just read her this, I think I am afraid to go to sleep while I am visiting them! So, while we agreed on almost the whole film (she gave it a 6 and I gave it a 7), I was left feeling more positive about the film because I have a very high tolerance for depressing and dreadful endings that many people will not enjoy.

Overall, not a great film but worth seeing--particularly if you like costume dramas.

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Costume Drama

barberoux10 October 2001

Vatel was a costume drama heavy on costumes, very light on drama. Gérard Depardieu wandered through this movie looking dazed and confused. His role seem to consist of a character walking through the back kitchens of a chateau trying this and tasting that. The first five times he did this were fine. You got the point that he was managing all the preparations for the King and had his hands into everything but he continued the behavior over and over. It got to be ridiculous and that was his contribution to the movie. Uma Thurman sat around looking sad and wistful and, for some reason not really explained, fell in love with Depardieu. That was a stretch. Tim Roth mugged it up acting conspiratorial and Julian Sands was good as the King though he lacked the calves. The costumes were wonderful and I looked forward to the DVD's extra feature called "The Costumes of Vatel". What a disappointment. It was about 7 minutes long and said yes there were costumes in Vatel. Nothing about the historical background or the colors or fabric. It seem to me to be a gold mine of information of which they said nothing. If you must, watch the movie for the setting and costumes but don't expect heavy drama or deep historical significance.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Contrast of noble status and noble virtues

Gordon-119 November 2007

This film is about a servant of noble values having to prepare an extravagant feast for the King's visit.

Vatel understandably focuses on one single character, Francois Vatel. To me, everything else in the film seems to be subplots or minor characters. Much time is spent on portraying Vatel as a hardworking, bright and noble person. He even knows his subordinates' life history by heart! Vatel's noble virtues contrasts with the corrupted mortals of high social status. The film's dark theme is sometimes overshadowed by the merry atmosphere of the feast. The extravagant sets and amazing costumes are very dazzling. The film is worth the watch just to see the feast scene!

9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Vatel, a talented steward

esteban174726 November 2002

The story is about an intelligent and skilled man, who was working for a prince and had to prepare everything (food, parties, etc. ) to welcome and to host the king of France, who was very much impressed with the work done by this man, Vatel (Depardieu). The plot showed an efficient acting of Depardieu, and poor one from Uma Thurman and Tim Roth, probably due to the roles given by the director to them. The film went plain, i.e. emotions were scarce and suddenly the end gave us something unexpected, in fact the previous scenes for the end did not show any intensity to justify what we saw in the epilogue. I cannot understand whether Joffé wanted to make a joke or was really his intention to show a coherent film with well elaborated plot.

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Favorite Scenes

agenerette4 June 2009

I simply never get enough of this film. It's one of the few that I have to re-watch, every so often.

Now, one of the things that struck me most strongly was the fact of Vatel and Anne's goodness -- this, in spite of where Louis' example might have led them -- with the people who worked with them.

The scenes with Vatel and Colin; with Anne and Louise... especially the one where Louise drops the vase that Vatel sent to Anne (and Anne says "It's alright, Louise... it's alright") ... these are made almost painfully beautiful by the contrasting scenes with the aristocrats running amok.

But, Vatel's words come back to me here: "Harmony and Contrast -- All beauty comes from those two things".

7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Pointless and cold period movie

Funky A8 October 2001

It is sad that a great cast worked on a movie as profoundly boring and meaningless as Vatel. Whatever the goal of this movie was, it fails... Unless it was to present a good-looking, but meaningless film OR a movie with some of the worst dialogues ever seen in a serious movie and the kind of plot so thin that you have to work really hard to see it is indeed there. Vatel is a movie about, well... A man named Vatel that is for sure. But nothing much happens to him. Sure, there are a couple of moments where we should care for Gérard Depardieu's character, but the problem is that we never really cared about him. And we know he has to prepare a huge celebration for the king. But nobody cares! Why? Because we never got to know the characters very well. Even Tim Roth's character, which we should hate, stirs no emotion at all. His actions are kind of mean, but we don't care. OK, I said that I didn't care for much of this review but that is because Vatel is a movie where stuff sort of happens to cardboard figures which are there to try to fill our need for a character. These cardboards figures fail miserably. And even if the costumes are beautiful, and some of the sets stunning, the directing is not very good. In the end, Vatel bores, leaves the viewer unnafected and fades into it's memory. This movie is forgotten easily and is a pure waste of time. Still, some scenes are visually very impressive. That does not mean the movie is really any good. Sadly the great cast is lost and can't help much since the characters they portray have only one dimension and can't seem to say one line which makes much sense...

49%

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Depardieu is brilliant

RARubin15 May 2006

Vatel, perhaps a weak title to a spectacular film; it recreates the excesses of the French court in its pre-off-with-their-heads-phase. In order to escape bankruptcy, the gout afflicted Viscount must entertain the King so sumptuously and so entreatingly, that the King may commission a war with Holland, thereby paying the Viscount's debts. To keep the King and his courtiers entertained, it was no small thing, so the entire countryside is enlisted in the feasts and entertainment. None will be paid unless the banquets are a success. Louis' entourage of Queen, mistresses, and waggish cavaliers run riot through the festivities. The fete is essentially an Olympic opening parade that goes on for three days in dazzling costume orchestrated by one great artist, the Viscount's steward, Vatel.

Vatel orchestrates the extravaganzas and falls for Uma Thurman, the King's new mistress. She is not yet the jaded courtesan and sees greatness in Vatel's can-do veneer. Indeed, Vatel is a man of integrity, denying the King's pedophile brother a young kitchen boy at the risk of his life. Vatel swats away meddling noblemen and women for the entire feast while making love to Thurman, star-crossed lovers though they are. Gerard Depardieu is brilliant even with his modest grasp of English.

9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Billiards match being played

johncarbines13 November 2005

I especially took an interest in the brief moment when the game of Billiards was being played, using a "shovel" style of paddle to move the balls around. It was quite obviously played as indoor croquet.

I felt that the film conveyed the story of a downtrodden manager who attempted all for his master only to be shafted in the end. A brief fling with a courtesan, one that means much more to him than to her, contributes to his final act of frustration and despair.

I'm sure that others will find historical inaccuracies, a fault of the production team, but I'm prepared to accept them as part of the process of bringing a story to film. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story telling.

Altogether an interesting movie that makes a telling commentary on the excesses of the French aristocracy of the time.

JC

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Player and The Viewer

tedg17 August 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Spoilers herein.

A terrific script, one which appears to be concerned with class imprisonment but is far more clever. The key notion here is self-reference.

Vatel is a producer of lush entertainments, presented to us by -- a producer of lush entertainments. Though only the translation is by Stoppard, this is the most Stoppardian of notions: to amuse us with a story about people just as greedy as ourselves for luxurious entertainment -- and to please while condemning.

The story goes farther into the truth: all entertainers are slaves, prostitutes. The game for an artist is one of drawing lines between that slavery and the noble joys of creation. Vatel does what he does because his obnoxious sponsors provide him the means to do what he desires. That's all, or not all because he needs the applause.

Also in Stoppardian fashion, we have Roth (Guildenstern , Mitchel, Vincent) there to tell us the terrible truth about ourselves. The plot involves competing attentions to Uma's character -- essentially a sweet whore with canaries -- and Vatel, the grand coordinator of revels. He is pulled by the King and his present employer as well as sexually by the King's brother. He wins the admiration (and protection) of that brother in refusing his advances by noting their common perversion in the quest for perfection.

How perfect for this film to be lacking the salt of engaging drama, that excuse we normally give for watching. How perfect that we collectively reject it because it is merely beautiful.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching

14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

a true "living movie"

peppeuse26 August 2000

One of the best film I've ever seen. The story of Francoise Vatel, the Condé's Master of Cerimonies, and the King's three days visit at Condé's Castle. This is truly a living movie, because of the soul that R. Joffé was able to put inside it. An amazing G. Depardieu, together with the whole excellent cast and the wonderful sets and costumes, gives us the taste of Vatel's life. His thoughts, his hearth and his death appears to us in all their poetry. The screenplay by T.Stoppard and J.Labrune is touching, the dialogues are perfect, the actors are amusing, the music by E. Morricone is quite good. All mixed by the directing of Joffé. A strange masterpiece.

10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Historical Drama

aa43531 July 2007

I enjoyed this movie due to the historical treatment of how politics played out during the time of the European kingdoms. Money is always the problem and the money is always from the poor for the selfishness of the rich---some things never change. Vatel like so many perfectionists of their crafts comes to the realization that no one cares--not even his employer! Good film with underlying truths that quite possibly could be reviewed in today's world. If you have visited castles in Europe you will enjoy getting a feel about how the sub-basements were used--no more complaints about your kitchen. Gerard Depardieu gives a good performance and the costumes and scenery are exquisite.

7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Finally - A French Food Movie!

carrie726 February 2001

Warning: Spoilers

Any true gourmand knows the story of Vatel -- and that he died for his art. I thought it impressively well-filmed and quite stunning. I didn't care that this wasn't Depardieu's best film or that it wasn't that well-acted. The visuals alone were worth the price of admission. It is sad that Tom Stoppard disappointed with dialogue that could have been far more compelling but I still didn't care. I am just happy to have a French Food Movie and see the history of Chantilly Cream!

13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

great cast, great costumes, great sets, and above all, great music!

sebaeyza21 July 2003

Enough has been said about "Vatel" so I wouldn't like to be redundant. However, I should emphasize on how superb the score is, it really takes you out on a trip to another era, of magic and beauty on one side, and the dread of poverty and human misery on the other. Throughout the film, you can easily perceive how the film is very critical on the selfishness and futility of the scheming and shallow gentry of the king's court. We see grandeur and pomposity in the face of pain and misery suffered daily by the servants and the common people. If you're a fan of classical music, you should certainly watch this beautiful film. Its score is indeed healing and uplifting.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed